Ford Says EcoBoost With a Straight Face
Well, actually I wasn’t there, at the Detroit Auto Show, but it stands to reason that someone from Ford uttered those words, near a rotating platform, without breaking into a laugh. I’m willing to go on record, though, with the prediction that Ford’s new engine, the EcoBoost, will bear a new nameplate within two years. In a world fixated on what is sustainable, that name is simply not.
The name of Ford’s new V6 engine seems to imply that power is somehow boosted by some naturally occurring and environmentally sustainable green technology, like tree leaves, or a river. Cars are a long way from being environmentally friendly, regardless of the technology that’s been developed and put into hybrid and electric cars. Electrical outlets don’t grow own trees, and in fact, much of the electricity we use is powered by coal, not exactly a clean or sustainable technology.
- » See also: EcoBoost: Ford’s Near-term Answer to Lowering Emissions Without Forfeiting Performance
- » Get Gas 2.0 by RSS or sign up by email.
I’m not saying that technological developments such as the direct injection and turbocharging that Ford is taking advantage of in the EcoBoost are not welcome. Every increase in efficiency - especially in an industry known for moving at a snail’s pace and preserving the status quo - is welcome. But what Ford is doing is something different.
Calling a truck a Tahoe or a Sequoia is probably good marketing, because it softens the mental impact of buying a vehicle that most people don’t really need, by implying that it’s got something to do with the outdoors, but calling an automotive engine EcoBoost is simply absurd. Consumers are smart enough to recognize the difference between what something actually is, and what is a label.
Ford seems to be labeling their new V6 twin-turbocharged direct injection engine as an eco-friendly product. The increase in fuel efficiency is welcome. Ford says that it’s the first such engine produced in North America. But an engine called EcoBoost that produces a fuel efficiency of twenty-two miles per gallon on the highway, and eighteen overall is not a green development.
Look for the EcoBoost medallion on those Ford vehicles in the next year or two, and then watch them disappear. Ford, of all the American carmakers, seems to be on the right track, but touting a name apparently culled from what one can only assume was a very short and manufactured list, won’t do the company any favors in the long run. Perhaps it’s best that Ford focus on what it does do well, which according to reports is the Fusion, because that’s the only way in the long term, it might do any EcoBoosting.
Source: Ford Motor Company
Image Credit: Ford Motor Company at Flickr under a Creative Commons License
I think the Ford speaker can defintely say that name with a straight face. Is it as “green” as an EV or a PHEV? NO, but it is a significant improvement over previous non-diesel combustion engines. You can read the details here.
http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=27455
To paraphrase a little the EcoBoost provides 20% better fuel economy and 15% fewer CO2 emissions. That is not going to save the world, but it is a solid step in the right direction. So layoff your bashing of all auto-American and be happy that at least one of the Big 3 has its head out of its butt.
The name EcoBoost is a term that pretty much everyone can understand. It combines a concern for the environment with better performance - something that the majority of Americans are looking for.
When you consider that it will translate into improved fuel economy of up to 20% and the fact that the EcoBoost engine will be in 90% of Ford, Lincoln and Mercury vehicles by 2012, it adds up to a *significant* impact on the amount of fuel that Americans use for their cars.
While BEVs, PHEVs and hybrids are important (and Ford has vehicles or plans for vehicles in all of those segments), the fact of the matter is, more impact will be felt by having the EcoBoost in millions of vehicles. It’s not going away. Together, with Ford’s commitment to other sustainable fuel sources, it will greatly impact the industry.
You can read more about our plans at http://ford.digitalsnippets.com/environment
Scott Monty
Global Digital Communications
Ford Motor Company
Beyond the ECO rhetoric, the BOOST portion of that engine refers to the turbochargers mounted to Ford’s new V6. Simply put, the car offers a MUCH greener alternative - in terms of fuel economy and emissions and use of recycled materials - than previous “performance” engines like the 5.0L and 4.6L V8s found in the Mustangs and big Lincolns of years past.
In fact, the ECOBOOST offers those advantages while still offering MORE POWER than the last generation Mustang Cobras (the “hottest” Mustangs sold under Ford’s SVT performance brand).
Developments like this are key to the greening of the automotive landscape - the motoring press, made up largely of performance enthusiasts, is essential to the mass diffusion of innovations - and the vast majority of customers still want performance.
Another argument for greening performance? In order for new innovations to achieve the economies of scale necessary to be financially viable, they need to be tested by someone willing to pay more initially, when the tech is still untried and more expensive to produce/purchase. Performance guys can ALWAYS be counted on to buy the latest and greatest, and subsidize the technology that will eventually make its way to the smaller compacts we all want to see on the roads.
It’s what “win on Sunday, sell on Monday” is all about.
Also: calling a truck a “Sequoia” has not a thing to do with any level of green-ness. Anyone concerned with green/eco-ANYTHING is not a serious buyer on that car.
My concern is not so much over the name, but the fact that electric cars like these require greater use of coal-produced electricity, which is not at all better for the environment. It isn’t sensible to turn from one eco-unfriendly, resource to another. I, for one, will not buy an electric car unless I can power it from a renewable natural source without further harming the environment.
Well Marc,
You have established your niche as a died in the wool detractor of American Cars. It is too bad that you weren’t there, you might have learned something. At the very least, you could have presented Ford’s explanation of the workings of the EcoBoost engine.
As long as low octane petroleum is the default transportation fuel, engines have to be designed for best efficiency to burn fuel at low compressions. However, this engine is a step in the right direction. We can debate the sources of ethanol elsewhere, but these new HIGH COMPRESSION engines reclaims the apparent inefficiency suggested by the loss in gas millage from Ethanol. With variable Boost from the turbo it is possible to optimize combustion efficiency for a wider range of fuels in the tank from low grade 89 octane dino-fuel to 104 octane E85 or higher E100. This engine has the capability to have much more flexibility when it comes to fuel sources. While I agree that as long as it is fueled by already CO2 sequestered in the ground, it is a mild form of “green washing”. But I fully support the efforts for engines including diesels that could one day run off of bio-based fuels (not food based of course) entirely so it can live up to its name in future incarnations as an ecoboost.
@ Allison. Ecoboost is not an electric car system. It is a liquid fuel internal combustion engine technology. While your confusion might originate from the author lumping this car in with “new propulsion” technologies like hybrids and purely electric cars in the first two paragraphs, you should educate yourself so that you are not confused by bad writing.
Allison:
Your gas burning vehicle pollutes at the very least 3-6X more than an electric vehicle taking energy from an averaged out supply from the entire U.S. electrical grid system. You seem to be proud that you pollute more than a electric car owner???
I wish the paid, oil and car company trolls would stop spewing propaganda - you sound like Al Queda. You could have bought a handful of solar panels online in the time in took you to write your post and made a real difference - instead you choose to continue to support terrorism….. We are entering the last decade of burning fossil fuels to power our vehicles. I hope we can eventually defeat your Al Queda friends.
GM has been using the similarly-named “Ecotec” engine since 2001 (started in Saturns, I believe. Now, nearly all it’s 4-cyl engines are Eco-tec). It’s all just marketing*.
I like the “Ecoboost” name and, personally, I think DI-Turbo technology, once it becomes mainstream, will end up saving a lot more fuel than hybrid/electric cars will.
100 million cars saving 15-20% fuel adds up to more than
1-5 million cars saving 50-100% in fuel, not to mention that there’s no reason you can’t have a DI-Turbo hybrid.
-Tim
*Although the Eco-tec engines are quite fuel efficient. For example, the Ecotec 2.2L in the Cobalt XFE and G5 XFE has more torque, more power and better fuel efficiency than either Civic or Corolla for 2009. Similarly, the Ecotec 2.4L in the G6, Malibu and Aura outgun the Accord and Camry 4-cyls in fuel efficiency.